When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[paulpablo]

Who is the broader world of intellectual inquiry?

The fact is that I reject a belief in god because I see no evidence of God. Definition of atheism =  disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

I don't know anything about God, I don't know he doesn't exist or that he does exist, I know nothing about him apart from heresay which I don't believe in.  Definition of an agnostic =  a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-9794-po...#pid211908

Your explanation goes back to my previous dilemma: People can see no evidence of God because they have competently examined the evidence and found it lacking, or they are simply incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence.

Which are you?

Your question is over simplistic and seemingly illogical to ask.

If I am incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence how would I be aware of this in order to tell you? 

Also you say THE EVIDENCE,  there's more than one claim of evidence, the evidence I've seen so far seems lacking, as far as I know I haven't been incompetent or incapable of observing the evidence.

Also if God does make evidence of his existence alongside his creations which he made incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence then his goal must be to not be believed in.

Also this dilemma of yours is completely unrelated to what you were originally saying. I was talking about how an atheist can be agnostic and vice versa, now you have skipped the topic of terms and definitions and gone onto a different topic of evidence for god.

If I am an atheist and agnostic because of reasonably viewing evidence or incompetently viewing evidence it makes no difference to the terms and definitions of atheism and agnostic.